Effectiveness and healthcare costs of eribulin versus capecitabine among metastatic breast cancer patients in Taiwan.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the real-world effectiveness and costs of eribulin to those of capecitabine in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) pretreated with anthracyclines and taxanes. METHODS: This study extracted data from the Health and Welfare Database in Taiwan to identify MBC patients, and then eribulin and capecitabine users were matched at a 1:1 ratio by age, residential region, Charlson Comorbidity Index score, and molecular subtype of BC cell. The overall survival (OS) and time-to-treatment discontinuation (TTD) curves were plotted using the Kaplan-Meier method. Healthcare utilization and costs between the two groups were compared. RESULTS: A total of 24,550 MBC patients were identified, and 298 patients were enrolled in each group after matching. The median OS was 11.8 months for eribulin (95%CI: 11.5-13.5 months) and 15.2 months for capecitabine (95%CI: 15.3-17.9 months; HR = 1.7, p < 0.0001). The median TTD was 4.0 months for eribulin and 6.6 months for capecitabine (HR = 1.6; p < 0.0001). No significant difference was found between the two groups in patients with >4 prior chemotherapy agents (OS: HR 1.1, 95%CI 0.8-1.5; TTD: HR 1.2, 95%CI 0.9-1.7). The total healthcare costs per patient during the treatment period were NT$580,523.8 for eribulin versus NT$497,223.8 for capecitabine (p < 0.0001), and total medication costs were NT$438,335.8 and NT$348,438.4 (p < 0.0001), respectively. CONCLUSION: Although eribulin showed an attenuated effect in the real-world setting in Taiwan, it may serve as an alternative for capecitabine in a heavy pretreated population. The total healthcare and medication costs were found to be higher with eribulin treatment.

Costs associated with Eribulin treatment for patients with metastatic breast cancer in a comprehensive cancer center in France.

BACKGROUND: There is no standard recommendation for metastatic breast cancer treatment (MBC) after two chemotherapy regimens. Eribulin (Halaven®) has shown a significant improvement in overall survival (OS) in this setting. Its use may however be hampered by its cost, which is up to three times the cost of other standard drugs. We report the clinical outcomes and health care costs of a large series of consecutive MBC patients treated with Eribulin. METHODS: A monocentric retrospective study was conducted at Institut Curie over 1 year (August 2012 to August 2013). Data from patient's medical records were extracted to estimate treatment and outcome patterns, and direct medical costs until the end of treatment were measured. Factors affecting cost variability were identified by multiple linear regressions and factors linked to OS by a multivariate Cox model. RESULTS: We included 87 MBC patients. The median OS was 10.7 months (95%CI = 8.0-13.3). By multivariate Cox analysis, independent factors of poor prognosis were an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 3, a number of metastatic sites ≥ 4 and the need for hospitalization. Per-patient costs during whole treatment were €18,694 [CI 95%: 16,028-21,360], and €2581 [CI 95%: 2226-3038] per month. Eribulin administration contributed to 79% of per-patient costs. CONCLUSIONS: Innovative and expensive drugs often appear to be the main cost drivers in cancer treatment, particularly for MBC. There is an urgent need to assess clinical practice benefits.